New Marvel #1's - Will I/You Be Buying #2?

[The Baron]

For me so far:

Amazing Spider-Man: No.  There's some interesting ideas in here, but not enough to spare some of my limited budgets of comics money/reading time.

Guardians of the Galaxy:  Yes. Just interesting enough to give them a chance.    

                                   

The New Avengers: Yes. So far, they seem to be treating Squirrel Girl well.        

                                   

Spider-Gwen: Yes. So far, they've maintained the quality from the previous book.      

                             

The Uncanny Avengers:  Maybe. It's mildly interesting, but I really don't like Deadpool.      

                   

How about you?

[Ron M.]

It's the same principal. They're making sure people know there's another issue coming out next month just as TV makes sure you know their show will be on again next week.

[Wandering Sensei: Moderator Man]

I haven't read any of those three titles because of the same reason. I loved the first issue or two of Gwenpool, but it steered too far in that direction. I'm happy that these titles exist, because I think they are made to appeal to female readers, but they're just not made for me.

Captain Comics said:

I caught up on December #1s, and got a bellyfull of "Batgirlization." I like that approach OK, but it was just too many at a sitting: Gwenpool, Starbrand & Nightmask, Hellcat, probably one or two I'm not remembering. It was a saccharine overdose.

[Ron M.]

That's probably also why Galactus restores worlds now instead of destroying them.

So other titles like Squadron Supreme are for "he-men" readers that like graphic violence then?

[Captain Comics]

That may be the case. Maybe I've finally aged out of comics!

Wandering Sensei: Moderator Man said:

I haven't read any of those three titles because of the same reason. I loved the first issue or two of Gwenpool, but it steered too far in that direction. I'm happy that these titles exist, because I think they are made to appeal to female readers, but they're just not made for me.

Captain Comics said:

I caught up on December #1s, and got a bellyfull of "Batgirlization." I like that approach OK, but it was just too many at a sitting: Gwenpool, Starbrand & Nightmask, Hellcat, probably one or two I'm not remembering. It was a saccharine overdose.

[Ron M.]

We're not losing interest in comics, comics are losing interest in us.

[Richard Willis]

If they were only making comics that appeal to us old fogies they wouldn't get new readers to replace us. Are they really attracting new readers? Fortunately the two big companies are now owned by movie companies which see them as valuable, so they can tread water for awhile.

Ron M. said:

We're not losing interest in comics, comics are losing interest in us.

[Ron M.]

That's the big question. Are they really attracting new readers? If so they don't need us old fogies. If not then they should think twice about losing us.

[Richard Willis]

Ron M. said:

That's the big question. Are they really attracting new readers? If so they don't need us old fogies. If not then they should think twice about losing us.

They are going to lose us one-by-one and they know it.

[Ron M.]

No reason to speed up the process though. The longer they keep us the more time they have to build up a new audience.

[Jeff of Earth-J]

I think the mainstream comic book audience turns over every four or five years. That obviously wasn't true 50 years ago, but I do think it is true now. The comics field today just isn't inspiring life-long fans anymore. Or maybe it's the fans themselves, always moving on the the next new thing.

[Captain Comics]

Anecdotally, the people hanging around my LCS on Wednesdays now have more melanin and estrogen than in previous years. (They're still nerds, though.)

[Jeff of Earth-J]

But will they still be there five years from now?